An article that everyone has been commenting on lately is “Campus Life 201: Trying Out Frum“, from the Fall 2011 issue of Reform Judaism magazine. The author, a Yale undergrad “raised in a committed Reform household”, tells the story of a week in which she adopted various practices including kashrut, praying three times a day (apparently with a non-egalitarian minyan), praying before and after eating, and wearing long skirts.
Some of the other blogs that have picked up this article have understood it a certain way: one blog gives it the headline “Reform Girl Tries Out Orthodox Judaism For a Week”, and another describes the experiment as “practicing Orthodox Judaism for a week”.

Had this been the actual stated objective of the experiment, I would have no objections. There are many streams in modern Judaism, and each one could stand to gain a better understanding of the others. One way to gain this understanding is by experience. (I’ve visited many types of Jewish communities myself, and occasionally I’ll pray out of a Yemenite siddur just to shake things up.)

But those who characterized the experiment this way didn’t read closely enough. Just as the word list in the famous psych experiment doesn’t include the word “sleep”, this article doesn’t use the word “Orthodox” even once.

In the author’s own words, the aim was different: “For seven days, I would do every Jewish ritual I could think of—big or small, no exceptions—to see whether rituals I had never tried or been mindful of would be meaningful to me.” This was done in order to “g[i]ve the informed choices I make as a Reform Jew renewed depth and meaning”.

Starting with this goal, there are a lot of different ways that this week could have gone. For example, it could have looked something like The Year of Living Biblically by A.J. Jacobs, an amusing read in which Jacobs chronicles his attempt to observe all the biblical commandments, including the more obscure ones such as shiluach hakein. Of course, modern Judaism (in all its forms) is more than just biblical, so one could envision a version of this that also includes practices originating in rabbinic literature and later. This experiment could have included a broad assortment of rituals (some still observed today, and others revived for this purpose) taken from all periods of Jewish history, and practiced in all parts of the Jewish world. Imagine shacharit from Kol Haneshamah, mincha from Nusach Ari, and ma’ariv from Seder Rav Amram, or the non-prayer equivalent of all that.

But that’s not how it ended up. (At least that’s not how it was described in the Reform Judaism article; the experiment may have included a wider variety of Jewish rituals, but we don’t have any written evidence for that.) Instead, the actual implementation looks a whole lot like a week in the life of a 21st-century American Modern Orthodox college student (albeit with more self-reflection). And not just any Orthodox college student, but specifically, a female one. Thus, “every Jewish ritual [she] could think of” didn’t include things like tefillin or tzitzit, which seem to be standard stops for people (of all genders) who are experimenting with Jewish rituals. Perhaps she didn’t think of those. But then in the discussion of “modest” clothing, the author mentions “male friends who wear kippot”. So if kippot count as a ritual (and I’m not sure I would classify them as such, but they certainly count at least as much as skirts do), then they are an example of a ritual that the author thought of (which we know because she wrote about it) but didn’t try (as far as we are told).

Thus the implementation involved Orthodox gender roles, contemporary Orthodox modes of dress, contemporary Orthodox views of kashrut (the author checks cookies for a hechsher – a practice that certainly originated after the Reform/Orthodox split), and apparently an Orthodox daily minyan (the author writes that “as a woman I simply did not count”). So the bloggers who characterized this experiment as “Orthodox Judaism for a week” can be forgiven for making that leap. Though it was framed as an exploration in informed autonomy, “Orthodox Judaism for a week” is basically how it turned out.

My point here isn’t to pick on some college student. As I wrote in Hilchot Pluralism Part VI, this result is typical when you bring together students from Reform and Orthodox backgrounds. When one group of students is brought up to self-identify as “not doing everything” and another group is brought up to self-identify as “doing everything”, the first group can hardly be faulted for believing the second group, when they haven’t been given any alternative paradigm. (Besides, as a Harvard alum married to a Princeton alum, I have low expectations for anything coming out of Yale, alma mater of George W. Bush and C. Montgomery Burns.)

Rather, my reaction is summed up (mutatis mutandis) by David Hammer, in his response to an article by an engineering undergrad who had volunteered to teach physics in a first-grade classroom:

I do not fault the author: He was new to thinking about science teaching, in a context that inspired presumption, and his intentions and enthusiasm were sincere. I would welcome Physics for First-Graders as an early paper in a science education seminar, hoping to see more sophistication later in the semester. But I cannot fathom the decision at Kappan to publish the ingenuous impressions of a novice, as if they represented an important contribution to the community. The Professional Journal for Education should have more respect for the profession.

Reform Judaism is an official publication of the Union for Reform Judaism, mailed out to every member of a URJ congregation. As such, I think it was irresponsible for them to print this article. The URJ is supposed to be “for Reform Judaism”, but by running this article, it is promoting the frame that being “more observant” is synonymous with Orthodox Judaism. In this frame, Reform Jews can make choices about their observance, but the menu from which they make these choices is contemporary Orthodox Judaism (rather than the full scope of Jewish practice from the past, present, and future).

At the end of “frum week”, this author decided that this lifestyle wasn’t for her, mostly because it was too difficult (plus one sentence on why it was ideologically problematic). But someone else might be inspired by this article to try out the same experiment, and might not come to the same conclusion of “Davening is hard. Let’s go shopping!“. Thus Reform Judaism finds itself in the position of doing recruiting for Orthodox Judaism, by promoting the frame that Reform is a sampler but Orthodox is the real deal. Even if many Reform Jews do indeed think of their Judaism this way, the movement’s official institutions and publications should be showing more leadership and presenting alternative options. Even if many Reform Jews have already surrendered their sense of authenticity, the movement shouldn’t be joining them in retreat.

22 comments:

One of my issues with liberal/progressive people of faith is that we/they cede all the ground on "authenticity" to the religious right. This article illustrates that issue in how she conflates engaged observance of mitzvot with Orthodoxy. I would have preferred to see her engage from Reform minhag and wear a kippah or put on tefillin, etc. (btw, I also think this is a HUGE issue in Jewish identity in Israel but don't get me started)

I've started to use the word "orthonormativity" to refer to this phenomenon, namely, the use of a frame in which Orthodox practice is assumed to be the standard when discussing anything relating to observance or "tradition" or the like.

It is in theory intended to be an analogue to "heteronormativity," the use of a frame that assumes heterosexuality. (I suppose my term could possibly mean other things in theory, but I think it's not too confusing.) This article is pretty much be a classic case of what I'm calling orthonormativity, especially because, as you noted, "Orthodoxy" actually isn't mentioned once - just observance and ritual.

Hmmm...and now I almost feel like I should give you credit for inspiring it, only I didn't actually read your earlier Forward article until just now, where you say: "[L]iberal Jews often invoke frames that implicitly establish Orthodox Judaism as normative...."

As I pointed out on another venue - this is mostly a semantic argument. If she had described her experiment as an experiment living as an Orthodox Jew, would you have objected? Would you have thought that was an unreasonable thing for a thoughtful Reform Jew to experiment with at a place like Yale where Orthodox Jews are perhaps a plurality of affiliated and practicing devout Jewish undergraduates?

As I may have mentioned before to you as well, there are other terms that are at least as imprecise as equating "Orthodox" with "traditional" or "observant." What about calling a form of Judaism "egalitarian" when what is meant is "equal roles for men and women in the context of public prayer." I would expect, for example, an egalitarian synagogue to count gentiles in a minyan and to pay the rabbi and custodial staff equal salleries - certainly not to distinguish between kohen, levi, and Israelite.

David Wolkenfeld writes:As I pointed out on another venue - this is mostly a semantic argument.

I don't think it is, in that it's not just about words (and couldn't be solved merely by substituting one word for another, as in the "chicks"/"women" example in the introduction to this post), but about ideas and cognitive frames.

If she had described her experiment as an experiment living as an Orthodox Jew, would you have objected? Would you have thought that was an unreasonable thing for a thoughtful Reform Jew to experiment with at a place like Yale where Orthodox Jews are perhaps a plurality of affiliated and practicing devout Jewish undergraduates?

No, I would not have objected, if such an experiment were framed as a lateral move from her existing practice, rather than a move to a "higher level of observance" (again, the issue here isn't the words, but the concepts). Different, rather than more. And if such an experiment were framed as an exploration of one of many options for Jewish practice, rather than as the locus of all possible Jewish practices (from which Reform Jews are free to select as many or as few as they see fit).

As I may have mentioned before to you as well, there are other terms that are at least as imprecise as equating "Orthodox" with "traditional" or "observant." What about calling a form of Judaism "egalitarian" when what is meant is "equal roles for men and women in the context of public prayer." I would expect, for example, an egalitarian synagogue to count gentiles in a minyan and to pay the rabbi and custodial staff equal salleries - certainly not to distinguish between kohen, levi, and Israelite.

My issue isn't just with imprecision in terminology, but with the frames that the terms invoke. (Generally, the frames are there before the terms.) I think that "egalitarian" is not parallel to "traditional"/"observant" for several reasons.

1) "Egalitarian" is a self-definition. And I don't have a problem with Orthodox Jews thinking of themselves as "more traditional" or "more observant" than non-Orthodox Jews. Orthodox Judaism (in its various forms) has certain standards for observance, framed as being most faithful to Jewish tradition, so it's reasonable that someone whose observance adheres to those standards would see him/herself as "more observant" and "more traditional" in regard to those standards. My problem is when non-Orthodox Jews (or pluralistic organizations that aren't supposed to take a stand) also implicitly accept Orthodox standards, and therefore think of Orthodox Jews as "more observant" and "more traditional" for the same reasons, since this hinders the development of a serious and authentic liberal Judaism.

2) The word "egalitarian", as it is used in contemporary Jewish life, is used as a shorthand for a very specific meaning (equality of men and women, often in the context of public prayer, but also in other contexts). Most people who use the word "egalitarian" in this sense aren't even thinking of the other meanings that you bring up (equality of Jews and non-Jews, of income, and of kohen/levi/yisrael), and would think of those issues as largely unrelated, since there isn't a dominant frame that links them together. (There are some exceptions: in the early havurot of the '60s and '70s, gender egalitarianism (which was more of a chiddush in those days) was seen as a manifestation of a broader egalitarianism that meant non-hierarchical participation in the community in contrast to top-down synagogues. But these concepts have been largely decoupled in the present time, now that there are plenty of top-down synagogues with gender egalitarianism, and non-hierarchical communities with differentiated gender roles.) In contrast, when people refer to some Jews or some Jewish practices as "more traditional" or "more observant", they are not just using a term of art, but are actually thinking of said Jews as (whatever words you want to use for it) more Jewish, or at least invoking an existing frame that does so. These associations are much stronger than the associations between the different senses of "egalitarian", and that's because of the entire discourse, not because of the words. (There is no strong association, for example, with other meanings of "more observant", e.g. "more perceptive".)

Please forgive my ignorance, but I came originally out of the Conservative movement so I don't know much about Reform, but I was under the impression that modern Reform (as opposed to the Classic Reform which viewed itself as committed to "prophetic Judaism" alone) says that Jewish tradition is nice and one may choose which parts are relevant to oneself. If one wants to keep Kosher or observe the halachic restrictions of Shabbat, that is fine, but not obligatory. Is this correct? If it is, then doesn't seem that it is legitimate to say that Orthodoxy is "going all the way" and that Reform isn't, an Reform is indeed measuring itself against Orthodoxy ("they do it all, we do some of it") and that it would be also correct to say that Reform does NOT have a concise, definable set of beliefs in and of itself? Thus, it doesn't make sense as some of the commentors in the articles you linked to who asked "did any Orthodox try Reform", because that would mean simply abandoning some halachic observances (I am not counting praying in a Reform synagogue instead of an Orthodox one because we all know that syangogue is only a small part of Jewish observance as viewed as a whole). It seems to me that the Conservatives DO have some sort of standard of practice which accepts the tradition as binding, with modifications as determined by their scholarly authorities in accord with modern norms of belief and behavior (actual practice by the laity is another matter altogether!) Please correct me if I am wrong.

If she had always worn tefillin and then decided to try to be "more observant" by not wearing tefillin, I can see how your objection would hold. But I fail to understand why observing more mitzvot is not objectively "more observant," even if she did not observe all the mitzvot she could have, and did some in an Orthodox mode.

What I have to say is having a hard time taking shape, so forgive if it comes out awkwardly. Jews generally regard the Orthodox as the guardians of the tradition. This article is a case in point - wanting to try out what Reform left behind, she looks to the contemporary Orthodox community for her exemplar. Of course, loath as the Orthodox are to admit it, Orthodoxy has changed changed considerably from what it was when it emerged to oppose the Reformers. The rootstock from which both emerged is something that both movements seem now to be nostalgic for. Orthodoxy gives expression to that nostalgia by claiming to have preserved it, Reform by looking to Orthodoxy in its own quest for authenticity.

In some ways this is understandable - assuming that Orthodoxy has preserved traditional Judaism is easier than searching out that tradition for oneself. But even that rootstock was not monolithic, but an aggregate of different communities with differing customs.

The Pittsburgh Platform abrogated Kashrut by stating that "we no longer find spiritual meaning in it."

To me this is the most important philosophical principle of Reform Judaism, because if one derives a general principle from this specific instance, that principle would be "If a mitzvah does not have spiritual meaning for us, we need not practice it." The corollary to this is that "If a mitzvah does have spiritual meaning for us, it is worth practicing."

Combine this with the overarching principle of individual autonomy, and an incredible variety of practice becomes possible. Most of that real variety, however, tends to be found mostly among Conservative laity. In part, this is because the Reform synagogue does little to create space for practices like laying tefillin (most do not have weekday Shacharit), in part it's because one who has a fairly developed ritual practice gets the word "frum" hurled at them as if it is a four letter word (which it happens to be).

"Trying out Frum" is a natural consequence of presenting Reform and Orthodoxy as a dichotomy, and of defining Jewish streams in terms of their relation to Orthodoxy. I think it may be regarded as a first step on this young woman's path towards forging a Jewish Practice that will ultimately work for her. IIRC she hung on to a few things like brachot over her food.

For a lot of young Jews, I think that college is like that moment when Jacob, away from home for the first time, finds that even in the face of theophany, he cannot use his parents' relationship with God as his own, but must forge his own covenant. The movement from being the Jew their parents want them to be, to being the Jew they want to be, requires some experimentation.

Y. Ben-David writes:If one wants to keep Kosher or observe the halachic restrictions of Shabbat, that is fine, but not obligatory. Is this correct?

It is (or should be) more complicated than that. Kashrut and Shabbat are not simply binary propositions. It's not just a matter of whether to observe them, but how. (This is true to some degree even in the Orthodox world. Chalav yisrael? Scrabble?) And Reform choices that differ from Orthodox practices don't necessarily differ l'kula, but might be more machmir. For example, many Reform Jews' kashrut practices are vegetarian or vegan, which places more restrictions on meat consumption than kashrut practices that permit meat under some circumstances.

Another example: As a student, I don't do any reading related to my weekday occupation on Shabbat or yom tov. When I was an undergrad, there was no eruv on my campus, and so some people would bring their textbooks to Hillel before Shabbat so that they could study for exams together on Shabbat afternoon. I had no objection to carrying the books on Shabbat, but I wouldn't open them. Which of us was "more Shabbat-observant"? Impossible to answer without imposing a particular framework of Shabbat observance.

If it is, then doesn't seem that it is legitimate to say that Orthodoxy is "going all the way" and that Reform isn't,

Were the students above "going all the way"? I was observing Shabbat restrictions that they weren't.

an Reform is indeed measuring itself against Orthodoxy ("they do it all, we do some of it")

This is a popular folk belief, but not the official Reform position.

and that it would be also correct to say that Reform does NOT have a concise, definable set of beliefs in and of itself?

Reform has a defined set of beliefs as much (or as little) as any Jewish movement does. A defined set of practices, not so much.

Thus, it doesn't make sense as some of the commentors in the articles you linked to who asked "did any Orthodox try Reform", because that would mean simply abandoning some halachic observances

It might mean that when one has a halachic question, instead of going to a rabbi (or Artscroll) for p'sak, doing the research oneself and making an informed decision.

rbk writes:But I fail to understand why observing more mitzvot is not objectively "more observant," even if she did not observe all the mitzvot she could have, and did some in an Orthodox mode.

The author's stated objective wasn't simply to try out "more observant", but to "do every Jewish ritual I could think of—big or small, no exceptions". Also, how do you square away the sentence "Before frum week, I had assumed that more observant Jews were just speed reading through the prayers, as compared to the Reform Jews in my home congregation, who actively participated in musical prayer services" with a purely quantitative definition of "more observant"? (And why is Reform Judaism magazine publishing an article in which "more observant Jews" is directly contrasted with "Reform Jews", rather than presented as something that can exist within every denomination?)

BZ-Thank you for your response. I am still somewhat unclear regarding what you mean by halacha not being a "binary proposition". Actually, it ultimately does boil down to that. In other words, halacha does define things as "mutar" (permitted) or "assur" (prohibited). For example, someone might find it very spiritually uplifting on Shabbat to get into his car and drive to a concert of classical music. Halacha defines this as assur. My question is whether Reform defines it as such as well, or is "assur" simply a recommendation.Most of the disputation in halachic discourse is not over basic prohibitions, but rather over "fences" that were drawn up by the Rabbis of the Mishnaic and Talmudic periods to keep people away from the basic prohibitions-in fact this week's Torah Portion lists the first one....Adam and Hava were told not to eat from the Tree of Knowledge, but the Midrash tells us that Hava was told by Adam that it was also forbidden merely to touch it. When she did touch it as a result of the the snake pushin her into it and saw that nothing happened, as they had been warned regarding eating it, she thought that eating it also would be without negative consequences. This teaches us to be cafeful about how we teach the halacha and how to make fences around the Torah. The example you gave of "halav Israel" is illustrative, because it is a "humrah" (stricture) and no one who restricts himself to it would say that someone who doesn't is violating the Torah because of the fact that major scholars arrived at this leniency.Thus, I am still unclear as to whether Reform does draw lines as to whether there are things that are out and out prohibited.

rbk writes:Do you approve of her idea to try out new Jewish rituals to find out what she wanted to incorporate into her autonomous Jewish life?

It's not my place to approve or disapprove of the personal religious expression of someone I've never met. My issue is with what gets printed in a publication that is sent to a million people. The language (not the actual practices) is what is in the public sphere.

I am a Conservative/Masoriti Jew who was raised Reform and left it because of issues such as Ref BT has stated - no real space or community support for what Reform's new platforms called for.

There are thousands of Jews who are doing what Reform calls for - experimenting with a range of rituals, including those observed by the Orthodox, egalitarian ones rejected by the O, and others, and adopting those they find most meaningful. A few are reform, a few are in independent kehillas, but most are members of Conservative congregations.

Of course C has a parallel problem - young people who want FULL ("binary") halachic observance (albeit according to C halacha, not O) and do not find the space or support for that within most Conservative communities.